Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
with senators john mccain and lindsey graham along with the u.n. ambassador susan rice. the three senators emerged from the meeting saying they were honored by the fact that the cia director would meet with them, just three random senators and not in some official capacity testifying before committee on the hill. they appreciated the fact that the administration and the intelligence community was going to such lengths to e swaj their concerns to personally answer their questions about the libya attack in a closed-door meeting with the cia director himself, even though these are just three random senators. the senators said their questions were answered as reasonably could be expected and they were willing to consider the president's nominee for secretary of state. they were tlog hear out those nominations fairly and without prejudice. yeah right. that's not the way it went. here's actually what happened after that meeting today. >> we're not going to consider this nomination until we get answers to our concerns. we're not even close to getting t the basic answers. >> we're e troubled by ma
ambassador to the u.n. what about what's going on in the u.n. this week? with the palestinians looking to have their status -- there's an entire agenda. the idea that we're focusing on one set of talking points is ridiculous. >> i know you to be a pretty nonpartisan guy, do you smell anything fishy with this benghazi investigation or the way it was handled? do you sense any incompetence? because if you talk to john mccain or lindsey graham, you ask the question, are we talking about a cover-up or general inconfidence? >> the idea was, why did they turn down the all the added security? why did the ambassador go without adequate security? that's a real issue. why were these decisions made? the question, then, of the talking points, what did the cia provide, why was the intelligence community late in apparently getting the points right? it's not the first time we've seen things like that. it's worth looking at. but the idea that a month later, we're still focusing on this rather than basic questions of foreign policy on how to deal with terrorism in these areas. seems to me we are missing
they go after the u.n. ambassador, apparently because they think she's an easy target? then they've got a problem with me. and should i choose, if i think that she would be the best person to serve america, in the capacity the state department that i would nominate her. >> are these republicans painting the president into a corner where he almost has to nominate her? >> they might and susan rice should send john mccain some flowers and thank him for this behavior, but the president's answer says why this is a good fight for him. if he takes them on over this, that is a win-win for this president because he will have a lot of people behind him, both in terms of public sentiment. we've got new polls today that suggests that where as people aren't quite thrilled with how the matter has been handled, they don't think the intention was to mislead the american people and other members of the senate have started to distance themselves from what i think is the three newest members of the bat crazy party. she went out and uses talking points not designed to mislead the american people, but were
be payback time for democrats blocking the nomination. >> ooh interesting. >> bill: as u.n. ambassador under george bush. and bush ended up appointing him as an interim appointment or whatever they call that. right? >> which he can't do anymore. >> bill: so that could be what this is all about. but of course, john bolton is the one who said we ought to lop off the top ten floors of the u.n. he was hardly qualified to be u.n. ambassador. victoria jones in studio with us. we'll be joined very shortly by dan from the center for american progress. keep the conversation going. >> announcer: this is the "bill press show." >>i jump out of my skin at people when i'm upset. do you share the sense of outrage that they're doing this, this corruption based on corruption based on corruption. >>i think that's an understatement, eliot. u>> i'm not prone tot. understatement, so explain to me why that is. i think the mob learned from wall st., not vice versa. [ male announcer ] it's that time of year again. time for citi price rewind. becau
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)